subpilot
Squawking 7600
lol, exactly :yup:
Renting a Plane and Having Someone Else Pay For It
- Thread starter Revolutionist
- Start date
tgrayson
New Member
True. But I bet that'd change if the kid started flying his dad on business trips...
Mike H
Well-Known Member
I think we're closer in agreement than previous posts would appear. In the context of the regulations, "holding out" means the offering a service. When it comes down to whom the service is being offered, the offer is restricted to the friend (or family member) and not extended to the general public.
grayson, everything you quote involves an offer of services to the General Public. Apples & snowtires again
Part 135 requires the certificate holder to have "exclusive use" of at least one aircraft. That can be accomplished via either ownership or lease. It really doesn't matter, but to get your 135 certificate you'd need "exclusive use" of at least one aircraft.
How that has anything to do with someone renting a plane and then hiring a pilot (quite separately) to fly them in their rented aircraft, I don't know.
-mini
subpilot
Squawking 7600
:yeahthat:
tgrayson
New Member
No, it doesn't. It means offering a service to the general public. Offering a service to a few selected individuals is not holding out.
Not true. Private carriage is NOT holding out.
tgrayson
New Member
From AC 120-42A, PRIVATE CARRIAGE VERSUS COMMON CARRIAGE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY
[...]
[...]
[...]
A carrier becomes a common carrier when it "holds itself out" or to a segment of the public, as willing to furnish transportation within the limits of its facilities to any person who wants it. Absence of tariffs or rate schedules, transportation only pursuant to separately negotiated contracts, or occasional refusals to transport, are not conclusive proof that the carrier is not a common carrier. There are four elements in defining a common carrier;
(1) a holding out of a willingness to
(2) transport persons or property
(3) from place to place
(4) for compensation.
(2) transport persons or property
(3) from place to place
(4) for compensation.
This "holding out" which makes a person a common carrier can be done in many ways and it does not matter how it is done.
[...]
d. Carriage for hire which does not involve "holding out" is private carriage. Private carriers for hire are sometimes called "contract carriers," but the term is borrowed from the Interstate Commerce Act and legally inaccurate when used in connection with the Federal Aviation Act. Private carriage for hire is carriage for one or several selected customers, generally on a long-term basis.
The number of contracts must not be too great, otherwise it implies a willingness to make a contract with anybody. A carrier operating pursuant to 18 to 24 contracts has been held to be a common carrier because it held itself out to serve the public generally to the extent of its facilities. Private carriage has been found in cases where three contracts have been the sole basis of the operator's business. Special adaptation of the transportation service to the individual needs of shippers is a factor tending to establish private carriage but is not necessarily conclusive.
[...]
Mike H
Well-Known Member
Which is it going to be: private carriage, or noncommon carriage?
At least you're getting closer. Instead of apples vs snowtires, you've gotten to apples vs coconuts- or something like that. At least it seems you're starting to realize that regulations pertaining to carrying the general public don't quite apply here
Xcaliber
El Chupacabra
That was my understanding too. I was looking for something written to back that up earlier, I couldn't find anything, so I'll keep looking later.
Again, I am no lawyer, but I'll have to disagree with you. Your argument makes sense from a subjective, normal-person point of view. From a legal point of view, though, I don't think it does. Where do we draw the line of "friends"? What is the legal definition of "friends"? I could argue that everyone I've ever met is my friend, and therefore, all of my passengers, whether I met them 5 years or 5 minutes before the flight, are friends of mine. Therefore, I am not holding out to them, and can take anyone flying, at any time, for any reason, to anywhere. AFAIK, the FAA says that if they are not immediate family, they are considered part of the "general public", and rightfully so. Again, I don't have the written part to back up the immediate family thing, but I'm still looking for it.
It doesn't. If a person rents an airplane, then hires a pilot separately, there's no issue. If you get the pilot from the same place, or if the pilot produces the aircraft, then you have a charter operator.
In this LoI, the FAA expands more on the meaning of "operational control" of an aircraft: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../interpretations/data/interps/2007/Fabian.pdf
tgrayson
New Member
Parts 119, 135, and 125 apply to private carriage, making holding out irrelevant.
If the OP carries his friend, with his friend footing the entire bill, he's engaging in private (non-common) carriage and would be illegally acting as a commercial operator.
Xcaliber
El Chupacabra
Again, no one is arguing against that. If the friend provides (procures, to use the FAA's word), there isn't any problem. But that's not the scenario given by the OP. In the scenario given, the pilot was the one locating and choosing the airplane, even if the friend was the one paying for it, which the FAA has made clear is illegal (see my last two posts for the LOIs).
Douglas
Old School KSUX
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
AC120-12A said:
Non-common carriage is just another way of saying private carriage. Any operation that a commercial pilot does that is not common carriage is defined as private carriage. Read the AC.
The AC defines some good points about Holding out and common carriage such as:
1. "willing to furnish transportation within the limits of its facilities to any person who wants it." Although saying no every once in a while isn't conclusive of no holding out, only have a limited number of contracts at any time would be. Maybe limit yourself to 5 maximum at any one time. Be sure to have proof.
2."Signs and advertising are the most direct means of 'holding out'" This is pretty easy to understand. A friend knowing you are a commercial pilot is not advertising as it would be a common knowledge within your group of friends.
3. "A 'holding out' may be accomplished through the actions of agents, agencies, or salesmen who may, themselves , procure passenger traffic from the general public and collect them into groups to be carried by the operator." So you can't have a middleman to skirt around the regs.
4. "physically holding out without advertising where a reputation to serve all is gained is sufficient to constitute an offer to carry all customers." Basically a repeat. Just be sure to set limits on your contracts and you will be fine. Getting a ton of small contracts in a short time could look like "holding out" so again set limits.
5. "A carrier holding itself out as generally willing to carry only certain kinds of traffic is, nevertheless, a common carrier." You can't be picky on what is in the back of the aircraft.
6. "A carrier flying charters for only one organization may be a common carrier if membership in the organization and participation in the flights are, in effect, open to a significant segment of the public." Basically sounds like a corporate flight department opening the aircraft for use for the public instead of company business.
I don't see the OP as breaking any of these points by flying an aircraft provided by his friend.
AC120-12A said:
Call em if you don't know. So long as you haven't already flown the contract you wont be violated for anything,
Xcaliber
El Chupacabra
Let's look at some different interpretations of what you just posted.
Assume all of your friends (since that was used as an example before) know you're a pilot (reputation). I think most of your friends would assume that you'd be willing to take them flying if they pay for it. Unless you give them all a list saying "I will only take Jim, George, and Grace flying, all the rest of your suck", then I think this is a valid interpretation. I'm not using this as an argument in the general discussion, I'm just offering up a different view point.
Again, read "organization" as "friends". I would assume that unless you're a neo-nazi, a "significant segment of the public" is available for membership to that "organization".
Rent the plane, pay for it using your own credit card or whatever, and go on the flight. Later, if you just so happen to find some cash sitting in your glovebox, "Hey, where'd that come from?"
Begin :soapbox:
I've said it before. Flight time is a byproduct of aviation, not a benefit. It is bravo sierra that the FAA considers flight time compensation. It's no wonder that pilots are not more successful in securing better wages. When your own government thinks that your labor is in fact a wage, how is your employer or your customer supposed to think anything different?
Suppose the IRS started considering it compensation. Would you be taxed for the value of it? Could you deduct anything in excess of above your pro-rata share of it?
FAA should spend more time getting their own house in order, and worry a little less about who pays for what!
End:soapbox:
Begin :soapbox:
I've said it before. Flight time is a byproduct of aviation, not a benefit. It is bravo sierra that the FAA considers flight time compensation. It's no wonder that pilots are not more successful in securing better wages. When your own government thinks that your labor is in fact a wage, how is your employer or your customer supposed to think anything different?
Suppose the IRS started considering it compensation. Would you be taxed for the value of it? Could you deduct anything in excess of above your pro-rata share of it?
FAA should spend more time getting their own house in order, and worry a little less about who pays for what!
End:soapbox:
tgrayson
New Member
Depends on how you define "provided". If the friend rents the airplane himself and has the OP fly it, there is no problem. In this case, there is no instance of carrying passengers "for hire", because the "for hire" implies the pilot provides the airplane, according to FAA Legal Interpretations.
If the friend just pays the OP for the airplane, then the pilot will be carrying passengers "for hire" and thus be in violation by engaging in air transportation without the appropriate operating certificate.
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
Then what is all the confusion about? You are all saying the same thing but in different ways for the most part.
Provided means that anything and everything that is needed to be done to acquire the aircraft is done by the customer and the customer only. Only paperwork I can see that may need done is the stuff required by insurance for the pilot flying the aircraft (renter test/checkout flight payed for and scheduled by the customer).
tgrayson
New Member
Mike H and maybe subpilot have the view that since the OP isn't holding out, it's ok for him to be paid for the flight directly by his friend.